D.C. digging in to fight ruling?

[SteveM]

"The Mayor, Attorney General and Chief emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited and leaves intact various other laws that apply to private citizens who would purchase handguns or other firearms for home possession. First, all firearms must be registered with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section before they may be lawfully possessed. Second, automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered. Third, the Supreme Court’s ruling is limited to handguns in the home and does not entitle anyone to carry firearms outside his or her own home. In addition, although the Court struck the safe storage provision on the ground that it was too broadly written, firearms at home should be kept either unloaded and disassembled or else locked except for use in self-defense in emergencies."

http://www.dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1325&mon=200806

Note the last sentence in Fenty's official statement. Is the Mayor's office merely recommending some form of "safe" storage except in "self-defense in emergencies" or requiring it by law? Is "self-defense" defined only when an "emergency" threatens? One can read this as requiring by law that guns be locked or disassembled up until an emergency is impending, thus fulfilling Fenty's definition of "self-defense." Such a measure would once again effectively prevent both reasonable preparation and speedy action on the part of a citizen in extremis.

[jeepnstein]

1. "It's only a flesh wound. Have at you!"

One would think after the stinging rebuke that was the Heller decision, the mayor of DC would go looking for a different windmill with which to joust. Seriously, the Court has spoken, now go round up some criminals or something.

J.

[spin]

2. Draconian gun storage laws are possible...

such as:

The gun has to be stored disassembled in a gun safe. The ammo has to be stored in a separate safe.

Citizens who register their handguns can expect the police to show up on their door without notice demanding to see the guns are safely secured.

We just can't have honest citizens shooting criminals. All at costs, we must preserve the criminal's right to pursue his chosen occupation without fear of possible injury or death.

*******

Note that the mayor has already stated that semi-auto handguns will remain illegal. He has effectively eliminated the most popular type of handgun in the country. As for full auto handguns, I personally have never seen one although I understand they are manufactured. Examples include the Glock 18, some Uzi pistols and the Beretta 93R. Very, Very, Very few are in civilian hands in this country.

I'm not aware of any areas of the country that allow firearm ownership that limit it only to revolvers. Maybe Washington DC can still have the most restrictive gun laws in the country.

[SteveM]

3. Subterfuge invites a challenge. Smells like Jim Crow (nt)

[Big Al Mac]

6. Bear in mind

Bear in mind that in Washington, DC any semi-auto that can accept a magazine that can hold more than 12 rounds is an automatic weapon. ie a machinegun.

[east texas lib]

4. I'm sure the good mayor's personal security detail is armed...

With the finest single action cap and ball pistols money can buy!;-)

[SlipperySlope]

5. There is no way to "fight" the ruling.

It has gone all the way to SCOTUS, there is no appeal from here short of repealing the Second Amendment.

They can try to "weasel" out of the ruling, and that is what it appears they may do. Change their laws by the absolute minimum required to obey the court's direct order, without acknowledging the broader reasoning behind the ruling.

For example: Fenty is basically saying he is only going to allow revolvers. That isn't going to fly.

[beevul]

7. In this day and age...

In this day and age, aren't most revolvers semi-automatic too?

[Jackeen]

9. Fair point. n/t

[jody]

10. Like many others, I have seen demonstrations of a single-action revolver being fired faster than a

semi-automatic.

[beevul]

13. Yeah...

Yeah, those are amazing to see, aren't they?

And quite impressive. A lot of those guys are more accurate than I am at my very best, and it blows me away (no pun intended).

[Recursion]

14. Off the top of my head I just know the NATO definition

And by that definition, no, because operator action is required to go through some part of the cycle of operation other than firing, even if that action is just the first half of the trigger squeeze.

Then again, I haven't fired a revolver in years; maybe they have fully self-cocking ones now.

[57_TomCat]

17. There are a few "automatic" revolvers...

such as the English Webley-Fosbery model from the early 1900's and the Italian Mateba a more current and esoteric version that after firing the recoil action rotates the cylinder and cocks the hammer. By and large the vast majority of revolvers are all manual action either requiring the hammer be cocked for each shot (single action)or the trigger being pulled through to cock and drop the hammer (double action).

Mateba's when you can find them are going for $1500 on up. Not your average pocket gun. :)

[Longtooth]

8. Can a person be held in contempt of the Supreme Court?

If so Mayor Fenty is sure asking for it. It'd be real interesting to see a Federal bench warrant issued on Mayor Fenty over this.

[slackmaster]

11. He can be impeached

If he doesn't honor the ruling, I think he should be.

[Tejas]

12. "conspiracy" is also

a crime, that term comes to mind when thinking about how Fenty speaks.

[Recursion]

15. Actually, Congress can depose the DC mayor at any time

Although the Constitution says the government must guarantee a republican (small "r") form of government to the people of the states, no such guarantee exists for the people in the Federal district, and indeed the government is not republican (small "r"), as Congress's numerous and continuous interferences with city government since Home Rule has shown.

[Spoonman]

16. Poor, poor Fenty

The next bitch slap he will feel across his face will be the "registration" issue.

The Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 clearly states:

( Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being: No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

He really should just lick his wounds and accept defeat.